oushi wrote:The cause of me starting this topic was the amount of "real" and "truth" in Buddhist teachings and discussion. I started it in "Language" just to keep it more broad. We can exchange quotes leaning on authority, but it will somehow go against the topic.

Perhaps you missed this, and since we are dwelling over and over again in samsara anyway, I'll repeat it:

"real" and "exist" in the Buddhist contextrefers to something which,if one were to divide it, dissect it, reduce it,one would find a finite point at which it could not bedivided or dissected, reduced any further,where some essential aspect would still remain.That essential aspect would be defined as "real" or "existent". ...

Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth. Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.

If I put "matter" in the place of "it", your statement will be as correct as before. Are you talking about matter? Atoms? Quarks? Or we can go straight to string theory?

I would say that your view is far from Buddhist. But, ever if it is 100% Buddhist, we are leaning on authority. If your definition of the real is based on the thing that others said, then I am fine with that. I just don't see the point of discussing it further.